JUDGMENT A.S. Pachhapure, J.— This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the concurrent findings of the Older passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in ITA No. 591/Bang/1995, dt. 8.7.2003 for the assessment year 1993-94. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under; The respondent Assessee is a private trust and it filed a return of income on 30.6.1993 declaring an income of Rs. 88,62,897/- as an income from capital gains. The return was originally processed under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Assessee entered into an agreement of sale on 6.4.1989 with Mrs. Sayeeda Fathima Begum for purchase of the agriculture lands in Sy. Nos. 35 to 39 (old Sy. No. 100) of B. Narayanapura in Bangalore south taluk and an advance of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on that day and a further advance of Rs. 90,000/- was paid on 30.8.1989. The Assessee, after entering into an agreement, initiated the process with the State Government to convert the land into an industrial land and the government granted the permission on 19.3.1992. 3. The assessee and Mrs. Sayeeda Fathima Begum entered into an agreement with M/s Hara Housing and Land Development Pvt. Ltd., for sale of the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- and the sale agreement came to be executed on 29.10.1992. Thereafter, M/s Hara Housing and Land Development Pvt. Ltd. obtained the permission of BDA to change the industrial land to residential purpose. The parties to the agreement applied for clearance from the appropriate authority, Bangalore and however, the appropriate authority preemptively purchased this property as per the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Act. The assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 93,03,711/- as consideration amount and Mrs. Sayeeda Fathima Begum was paid a sum of Rs. 11,30,930/-. This amount was paid with the consent of the parties. 4. Out of the sum of Rs. 93,03,711/-, the assessee declared a sum of Rs. 88,62,897/- as taxable income under the head 'Capital Gains' and claimed the expenditure of Rs. 4.40 lakh for conversion and improvement of the said property. Sayeeda Fathima Begum was paid a sum of Rs. 11,30,930/-. This amount was paid with the consent of the parties. 4. Out of the sum of Rs. 93,03,711/-, the assessee declared a sum of Rs. 88,62,897/- as taxable income under the head 'Capital Gains' and claimed the expenditure of Rs. 4.40 lakh for conversion and improvement of the said property. The Assessing officer found that the assessee had spent a huge amount for conversion of agricultural land to the industrial use and thereafter to residential plots with the sole object of carrying on a business activity and the claim of the assessee that the property was purchased for starting an industry was rejected. The Assessing officer found that a sum of Rs. 9 lakh had been paid to one Sri Y.B. Krupashankar to purchase the other property at B. Narayanapur. All these facts amongst the others as stated in the assessment order were taken into consideration and it was concluded that the assessee was carrying on an adventure in the nature of a trade and therefore, was liable to be taxed under the head 'income from Business' and not under the head Income from Capital Gains.' The assessee was hence treated as an association of persons and the entire income received from the sale of property was brought to the tax under the head Income from Business' in the assessment order, dt. 28.3.1994. 5. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal came to be preferred to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who held that, income should be assessed under the head 'Capital Gains' and further held that the assessee should be assessed in the hands of beneficiaries and not in the status of AOP and accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed under an order, dt. 20.1.1995. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Commissioner, an appeal came to be preferred to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which considered the various grounds raised and confirmed the findings recorded by the Appellate Commissioner (vide order, dt. 8.7 2003). Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, this appeal has been filed. 6. After hearing, we have formulated the substantial questions of law as hereunder; 1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the consideration received by the assessee of Rs. 93,03,711/-for selling the land bearing Sy. Nos. 8.7 2003). Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, this appeal has been filed. 6. After hearing, we have formulated the substantial questions of law as hereunder; 1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the consideration received by the assessee of Rs. 93,03,711/-for selling the land bearing Sy. Nos. 35 to 39 of Mayam Gutta village, which had been acquired under an agreement for Rs. 1 lakh should be brought to tax under the head "Capital Gains" and not under the head "Business" despite the assessee carrying on a systematic activity of converting agriculture land to non-agriculture by making an huge investment? 2. Whether the appellate authorities failed to take into consideration number of materials relied on by the Assessing officer to arrive at a conclusion that the Assessee was carrying on a systematic activity in order to derive the income from business and consequently recorded a perverse finding? 3. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the Assessee cannot be assessed as an 'association of persons' bat should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries? 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 1965 ITR 21 (Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta) held that, "The facts that the appellant made a profitable bargain when it purchased die property and that it had a desire to sell the property if a favourable offer was forthcoming could not without other circumstances justify an inference that the appellant intended by purchasing the property to start a venture in the nature of trade." 8. So also, in the decision reported in 1969 ITR 735 (P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala), it was held that, "It is not possible to evolve any single legal test or formula which can be applied in determining whether a transaction is an adventure in the nature of trade or not. The answer to the question must necessarily depend in each case on the total impression and effect of all the relevant factors and circumstances proved therein and which determine the character of the transaction." 9. So, in the context of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, if we consider the facts on hand, it reveal that the Assessee is a private trust and entered into an agreement of sale on 6.4.1989 with Mrs. So, in the context of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, if we consider the facts on hand, it reveal that the Assessee is a private trust and entered into an agreement of sale on 6.4.1989 with Mrs. Sayeed Fathima Begum to purchase the land bearing Sy. Nos. 35 to 39 and an advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh was paid and the process was initiated to convert the land into an industrial land and the permission was accorded on 19.3.1992. It is, at this stage, that M/s Hara Housing and Land Development Pvt. Ltd., agreed to purchase the said land for an amount of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- and the agreement came to be executed on 29.10.1992 and the agreed purchaser obtained the permission of BDA to change the industrial land to residential purpose and it is in these circumstances that the appropriate authority preemptively purchased this property as per the provisions of Chap. XX of the Act and the Assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 93,03,711/- as consideration amount and some amount was paid to Mrs. Sayeeda Fathima Begum. So, taking into consideration the nature of the transaction, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was any intention to make the profit and even otherwise we do not find that the transaction was in the nature of trade. It is in the context of these circumstances that the Commissioner of Income Tax and also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concurrently held that it is not in the nature of a trade and the profit earned thereby cannot be under the Head "Business" and it has to be under the head "Capital Gains." 10. Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred to supra, we are of the opinion that the concurrent findings arrived at, by the authorities below are just and proper and we answer points 1 and 3 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative and as there is no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed accordingly.